GUANTANAMO prison torture terrorism

[Lotusflower]

i think you will find my views are shared by those who wish to stop terrorists from killing innocent people, the israelies for instance run several schools in the use of extracting information, these school instructors travel the world teaching government agencies in modern methods ,we in england have companies producing such things as stun guns and prods for export to foreign governments so you see it may be on the statute books that torture is illegal but it is still going on and carried out by just about every country in the world

 

 

 

can we have a show of hands for those who would sit in a room with a bomber and not want to extract information that would possibly stop a bomb going off in a crowded place

 

How many people do or do not share your views is totally irrelevant.

 

In terms of consciousness and strategy I put you alongside the terrorist. Both of you are slaves to stupidity.

[Amaranthus]

Can you guarantee absolutely that torture would mean we got the actual, correct information we need?

 

Exactly. You will say anything under torture! The only way you will know if a person being tortured is telling the truth is if you already know the answer... in which case the torture is unnecessary in the first place!

[dodger1]

It's justified if it prevents a terrorist incident. Also paying compensation to so called 'victims' of torture is a complete waste of money especially when resources are limited.

 

SLIMSID2000 "for prime minister" GO ON LAD !!!:banana::clap:

[Majestic]

Guantanamo only ever existed in peoples imaginations.

[johncocker]

This amuses you because?

 

 

 

 

I think it amuses him because you torture people on SF and get away with it.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I don't like the idea of torturing anybody, but the definition of torture has changed - and I wonder whether those changes were a good thing?

 

In the early 70's, UK law allowed people who were captured to be interrogated. Permitted methods included disorientation, sleep-deprivation and some physical stress.

 

(You could have a black bag put over your head, be made to stand with your feet apart about 2 feet from the wall, and lean against the wall supporting (a part) of your weight on your fingers. You could be kept awake using lights and loud music.)

 

The purpose of that was to cause disorientation and perhaps to reduce the resistance of the individual being interrogated; possibly causing him to 'let slip' information he might otherwise have kept to himself.

 

Numerous servicemen underwent exposure to that sort of treatment. It may have given them an insight into what they might expect should they be captured, but I very much doubt that it brutalised them - and AFAIK; none of them was awarded hefty payouts from public funds.

 

You can't do that anymore. If you keep somebody awake by playing loud music, that is classed as torturing him.

 

If you complain to the council because your neighbour is keeping you awake by playing loud music, do you think they will arrest him for torture?

 

It's torture if the Army do it.

[azazel666]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

Opression exists on both sides.

 

 

Ok but it doesn't take much to see what is right and what is wrong....are you saying that Western intelligence services and organisations such as Al Queda are just polar opposites with no right or wrong?

 

I think anyone thinking rationally will see that one of the above is(for the most part)trying to make the world a safer place, and the other quite the opposite - whether in their minds they have a "holy" cause or not.

 

My point is that you cannot tar torture by both parties with the same brush. One would be to save lives and make life better, the other is for what I would perceive as a purely destructive reason - again, whether in their minds they have a "holy" cause or not.

[Chris_Sleeps]

[...] My point is that you cannot tar torture by both parties with the same brush. One would be to save lives and make life better, the other is for what I would perceive as a purely destructive reason

Why is it destructive in one context and not in another? Your argument could be used for all war crimes. It's okay to blow up schools, because we cannot tar blowing up schools with the same brush. For us we blow up schools to save lives and make life better, and the other is purely a destructive act.

 

Surely if we want to take a moral highground for "making life better", or freedom, then that eradicates all use of torture. The means do not justify the end.

[splodgeyAl]

Ok but it doesn't take much to see what is right and what is wrong....are you saying that Western intelligence services and organisations such as Al Queda are just polar opposites with no right or wrong?

 

I think anyone thinking rationally will see that one of the above is(for the most part)trying to make the world a safer place, and the other quite the opposite - whether in their minds they have a "holy" cause or not.

 

My point is that you cannot tar torture by both parties with the same brush. One would be to save lives and make life better, the other is for what I would perceive as a purely destructive reason - again, whether in their minds they have a "holy" cause or not.

 

I'd say that both sides *think* they are trying to make *their* world a better place.

 

Right and wrong are value judgments and have no absolutes

[johncocker]

Exactly. You will say anything under torture! The only way you will know if a person being tortured is telling the truth is if you already know the answer... in which case the torture is unnecessary in the first place!

 

so if your kid or some one close to you had been kidnapped hidden away somewhere starving to death and you had the kidnapper and he would'nt tell you where they were, would you be giving him tea and cake?